Doesn’t it all boil down to the fact that there are just some evil sons of bitches in this world that have no regard for other fellow humans whatsoever?

They kill, mutilate, violate and commit other heinous crimes against other fellow humans that deserve the most severe type of punishment at the disposal of the particular jurisdiction in which they commtited this/these act(s). They are not capable of being rehabilitated or ever again becoming a trusted and productive member of society. I see no reason why an individual who commits such an act should expect any compassion in return. Nor do I see why society should be burdened with the task of building ever more secure, fortified prisons to incarcerate these sociopaths for the rest of their lives. As far as I am concerned, their rights to expect fair and compassionate treatment and indeed their right to continue to exist ends when they knowingly commit a premeditated act of murder, serial rape, serial molestation or other such repugnant crimes. Indeed, sometimes certain parts of the human genome need to be removed from the gene pool, and the herd needs to be thinned to allow the others to live without the fear of becoming victims of those like him. The absurdity of having to live in fear of such people in the 21st century, is an indictment of the justice system, those who administer it, and our society in general.

I realize that many feel that we have no right to take the life of others, no matter what type of crime they have committed, but what if they are “rehabilitated” or escape and later kill one of your family members? Would that change your mind?

Just treatment for such a person can be difficult for us to arrive at a consensus. However, as repugnant as it is to some, sometimes we must put on the executioners hood, sharpen the ax and let some heads role. If you haven’t the stomach to mete out such punishment, there are those among us who do. Until such individuals no longer reside among us, there is just no other solution to this thorny and emotionally charged issue but to forcibly remove them for the greater good of us all.

People who propose a serial killer be rehabilitated invariably want nothing to do with being responsible for the serial killer’s actions should he go on to kill again. “We did the best we could to rehabilitate him. Sorry he killed your mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/wife/husband. But that’s just, you know, life.”

Sounds a bit like ‘sorry we executed your mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/wife/husband after they turned out to be wrongly accused’

the pro-death penalty crowd invariable want nothing to do with the ‘mistakes’. Its usually followed by some kind of totalitarian response- ‘well…what about all the ones who were guilty? 4 outta 5 ain’t bad!’

Doesn’t it all boil down to the fact that there are just some evil sons of bitches in this world that have no regard for other fellow humans whatsoever?

Indeed. So how will we deal with this? Remove what seperates us from the killers? become the very thing we detest to satisfy the desire for revenge?

This is a bad option for the 21st century.

I realize that many feel that we have no right to take the life of others, no matter what type of crime they have committed, but what if they are “rehabilitated” or escape and later kill one of your family members? Would that change your mind?

You want to show people its bad to kill to people, by killing people?

Count me out of that aberration of logic!

Until such individuals no longer reside among us, there is just no other solution to this thorny and emotionally charged issue but to forcibly remove them for the greater good of us all.

A simplistic solution for a complicated problem.

Since when has capital punishment, sterilization or any other act of violence that a government has dished out to various groups in society ever got rid of all the bad people or made things safer?

I’ve never seen a single scrap of data showing how country’s which don’t practice state sanctioned murder have any worst problem with violence than the nations which do.By executing criminals we are also counting out a source of cheap labor.

People who propose a serial killer be rehabilitated invariably want nothing to do with being responsible for the serial killer’s actions should he go on to kill again. “We did the best we could to rehabilitate him. Sorry he killed your mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/wife/husband. But that’s just, you know, life.”

Sounds a bit like ‘sorry we executed your mother/father/son/daughter/brother/sister/wife/husband after they turned out to be wrongly accused’

the pro-death penalty crowd invariable want nothing to do with the ‘mistakes’. Its usually followed by some kind of totalitarian response- ‘well…what about all the ones who were guilty? 4 outta 5 ain’t bad!’

Of course, if you’d actually bothered to read all of my posts in the thread, you’d have realized I’m personally not advocating CP in cases where mistakes are possible, you blithering dolt.

Signature

The fact that life has no meaning is a reason to live - moreover, the only one.

Here’s the other part of capital punishment that makes no sense to me. There are a variety of reasons why people kill other people, most murders take place because of domestic violence or in the carrying out of other criminal activity when a gun is present. Few cases are of the type where the murderer plans out in detail and with clear deliberation to kill their victim. In fact we have classes of murder ranging from manslaughter (several kinds) to first degree murder, and we consider those murders that fall in the most heinous category to be the ones where there was deliberate intent and a where serious plan is devised to commit the murder. Horribly enough, capital punishment falls into this most heinous category, There is no more deliberated and planned instance of killing people than when it is done by the government’s judicial branch. Here we have whole collections of people involved in the murder, everything is laid out in detail, and special contraptions are constructed and designed specifically to function in the task of killing other people. This, to me, is the most horrific and inexcusable behaviour possible. When there are always different options (even where the rare serial killer is involved) to choose killing as the solution is act without any basic human conscience at all.

Indeed. So how will we deal with this? Remove what seperates us from the killers? become the very thing we detest to satisfy the desire for revenge?

This is a bad option for the 21st century.

So, what would be your solution to this problem? I fail to see how you can deal with such people except in a manner they chose to employ on their victims.

meloncolin - 01 February 2008 11:49 AM

You want to show people its bad to kill to people, by killing people?

Count me out of that aberration of logic!

No, I want to remove those people from society so that they can never harm another human being. I feel no empathy for those that know the penalty for killing another is death, but still chose to do so. As a society we have rules, unless we enforce them, there is no reason for them.

meloncolin - 01 February 2008 11:49 AM

A simplistic solution for a complicated problem.

Sometimes simple solutions are what is needed.

meloncolin - 01 February 2008 11:49 AM

Since when has capital punishment, sterilization or any other act of violence that a government has dished out to various groups in society ever got rid of all the bad people or made things safer?

No person that was executed ever committed another crime, as far as I know. Convicted murders have escaped and killed again though. I am not talking about all “bad” people, just those who commit premeditated murder one or more times.

meloncolin - 01 February 2008 11:49 AM

I’ve never seen a single scrap of data showing how country’s which don’t practice state sanctioned murder have any worst problem with violence than the nations which do.By executing criminals we are also counting out a source of cheap labor.

Most likely they a much less religious countries than this one. Cheap labor? Do you know how much it costs to keep these misfits confined? Do you really think that we could ever utilize violent offenders as source of labor? You can’t let them use tools, because they will just kill other inmates or guards with them.

I’m against the death penalty for the simple reason that when somebody is dead they do not realise they are being punished by being dead - because they are dead. They have just been consigned to an endless dreamless sleep. Personally I think being removed from society for the rest of your days and having your liberty taken away is probably a worse punishment than death - of course there is the financial issue of a criminal being housed and fed indefinitely to consider as someone as already raised.

Maybe one way of salvaging (literally) something from a situation where somebody has committed a crime or crimes so bad where they need simply removing from this world, would be to make it obligatory that any criminal facing the death penalty would have their organs available for donoring upon their deaths. Maybe this is already in place in some countries?

At least this would have some sort of poetic finality to the execution of serial killers.

Sorry, just noticed when re-reading, the donoring thing has already been brought up.

It seems like a good idea to examine the reasons (as justifications) for choosing capital punishment as a response to certain crimes.
A) we want to punish the murderer
B) we want to deter all potential murderers
C) we want to achieve fair retribution for the crime (we set the scales of justice)
D) we want to equal out the moral ground (an eye for an eye)

And there may be other reasons, while all of these above are direct responses to the actions of the criminal, none take into account the larger ethical grounds and standards that a society should consider as their own reflection. Put in another way, what does this choice of action (even as a response) say about the ethical underpinnings of the entire society involved here?

Choosing capital punishment might say this about the society:
1) we are not constrained by larger ethical considerations about our actions
2) we set the moral foundations and by this action our majority is speaking
3) we must be tough on crime measured by our treatment of those criminals
4) we maintain that ethical standards do not apply to us

It seems obvious that our response to crime plays equally in both fields of ethical considerations . . . in the context of the PAST - how we respond to certain immoral actions by individuals, and in the context of the FUTURE - how we wish to portray our own ethical standards as they apply to the possible actions of other individuals. I feel like trotting out an old cliche, “what’s done is done” to claim that the ethical future is actually more important than the ethical past. We cannot change the past but we can influence the future and as a society is just seems like common sense to put more emphasis on our projections than on our reactions. Perhaps a future-to-past consideration ratio of 60-40 or even a 70-30, might be a justified application of our ethical scales. (Anything lower than a 50-50 split ratio of future-to-past would almost certainly advocate that we respond to murder with murder, but in that context we would be regressing in our moral standards to the dictates of the our past.)

Perhaps this sort of cutting-up of the moral terrain is too idealistic, but at least it might be worth considering where we are going and from where we have come? (Or could it be that I have fallen for another old cliche “the road to hell is paved with good intentions?”)

It seems like a good idea to examine the reasons (as justifications) for choosing capital punishment as a response to certain crimes.
A) we want to punish the murderer
B) we want to deter all potential murderers
C) we want to achieve fair retribution for the crime (we set the scales of justice)
D) we want to equal out the moral ground (an eye for an eye)

I propose:

E) we want to ensure that the murderer has no chance of murdering again.

F) The murderer has broken so many points in the basic moral contract, thereby, through his own actions, annulling the ordinary obligation WE have from not killing him.
Whether we choose to do so or not is up to us.

F) The murderer has broken so many points in the basic moral contract, thereby, through his own actions, annulling the ordinary obligation WE have from not killing him.
Whether we choose to do so or not is up to us.

So you need to a reason not to kill. You’re one of the ones I’d keep my eye on then.

Personally I’d have to have a damn good reason to kill or harm someone ... a reason such as someone who is trying to kill or seriously harm me or someone else, and that has to be an immediate kind of thing. Once that’s past I see no remotely likely sufficient motive to kill, particularly when we’re talking about those anomalous people who are psychotic or otherwise mentally aberrant and would so seriously violate the social contract. They would serve far better as study subjects or laborers or by some other means to actually produce something beneficial to society, rather than to satisfy our socially counterproductive and rather less than noble desire for revenge.

Byron

Signature

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins